A Manual for the Performance of Protective Equipment Fit-Mapping

Abstract

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.

Static, Dynamic, and Cognitive Fit of Exosystems for the Human Operator

“…Traditional anthropometric databases (Gordon et al, 2013, 2014; Harrison & Robinette, 2002) have been used to quantify anthropometric characteristics recorded in standardized postures, develop sizing systems, evaluate population accommodation rates, and generate digital human models for various target populations. Encumbered anthropometry studies include equipped size, weight, shape, and bulk in various ensemble configurations (Choi, Garlie et al, 2019; Garlie & Choi, 2014; Hsiao, 2013; Jones et al, 2013), as well as 3D surface coverage of a body within the geometry of equipment or a device (Choi et al, 2009; Hsiao et al, 2009; Jones et al, 2014, 2015; Li et al, 1999).…”

“…In practice, evaluation of the static alignment between a user and equipment considers subjective comfort (e.g., too tight, too long, too loose) and quantitative measures (e.g., ease at chest, sleeve length from ulnar stylion) at relevant body locations while trying on different sizes (Choi et al, 2011; Hsiao et al, 2007). Quantitative measures can be assessed through traditional methods or by 3D scans (Choi et al, 2009; Hsiao et al, 2015; Jones et al, 2015; Li et al, 1999; Loker et al, 2005), and evaluated in terms of 3D body shape models (i.e., parametric body shape modeling [Hsiao et al, 2009; Jones et al, 2018; Park & Reed, 2015; Park et al, 2017]). Figure 1 shows an example quantifying ease at a specific location using a cross-section extracted from a 3D scan, which may be expressed as the difference between two surface lengths or as the space between the body and equipment in the azimuth direction from the center of the body (termed radial ease [Wang et al, 2006]).…”

“…Broadly, fit is an optimized status between the human and their immediate environment (Choi et al, 2009) where immediate environment begins with clothing or worn devices and extends to the workplace. Proper fit entails SPECIAL ISSUE: User Centered Design for Exoskeleton & Exosuit Usage "equipment ease," a term denoting balance between the size of wearable equipment and the size of the wearer.…”

Sustainable Sizing

“…Fit-mapping is a method that measures the relationship between body and product so that ease and adaptations are scientifically based (Choi, Zehner, & Hudson, 2010; Robinette, 2012). This allows for removal of (1) duplicate sizes, (2) wasted adjustments, and (3) addition of missing sizes or alternate shape ranges.…”

Applied anthropometry for common industrial settings design: Working and ideal manual handling heights

“…Working spaces and tools need to be suited to the end user's anthropometric dimensions in order to obtain healthy and productive working places (Marras and Kim, 1993;Pheasant and Haslegrave, 2006;Pheasant and Steenbekkers, 2005), but additionally adapting the design to the end user's anthropometry enhances sustainability, mainly because this reduces raw material consumption, increases usage lifetime and incorporates ethical human resource considerations into design (Nadadur and Parkinson, 2013). Several applications of anthropometry are reflected in a variety of reports and applications such as school furniture (Castellucci et al, 2016;Castellucci et al, 2014, Castellucci et al, 2015aMokdad and Al-Ansari, 2009), agricultural tools (Dewangan et al, 2010;Syuaib, 2015bSyuaib, , 2015a, car assembly (Castellone et al, 2017), personal protective equipment (Choi et al, 2009;Coblentz et al, 1991;Hsiao, 2013;Laing et al, 1999;K. M. Robinette and Branch, 2008;Stirling, 2005;Vergara et al, 2019), public transport seats (Molenbroek et al, 2017;Porta et al, 2019), domestic settings (Dawal et al, 2015) and even space shuttles and suits (NASA, 1978).…”